California Court of Appeal, Bartel v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., Docket No. H052083

Punitive Damages

 

Clear and Convincing Standard

 

Insurance Law

 

California Law

 

 

 

“In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code, §3294, subd. (a).) A plaintiff is never entitled to punitive damages as a matter of right. (Uzyel v. Kadisha (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 866, 923.) Rather, “a claim for punitive damages requires ‘evidence which establishes by “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant has been “guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” If a plaintiff is to recover on such a claim, it will be necessary that the evidence presented meet this higher evidentiary standard.’” (Food Pro, supra,169 Cal.App.4th at p.994; see Civ. Code, §3294, subd. (a).) In the context of failure to properly administer an insurance claim, punitive damages are ordinarily “based on ‘malice’ or ‘oppression,’ rather than on the third possible ground for the award, ‘fraud.’ Both ‘malice’ and ‘oppression’ are defined in Civil Code section 3294 as involving ‘despicable conduct,’ which in the case of malice ‘is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,’ and as to oppression is ‘conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.’” (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1286–1287 (Tomaselli).) We review de novo whether the undisputed facts underlying Chicago Title’s claim handling in this case satisfy the requirements of Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a).  (See Ghirardo, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p.801.)

 

 

(…) Furthermore, we have determined that the manner in which Chicago Title repeatedly rejected tender in the face of a clear duty to defend amounted to bad faith. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that Chicago Title’s bad faith refusal to defend Bartel under the policy until partway through Composti III rises to the level of malice or oppression within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294.

 

 

The heightened legal standard for imposing punitive damages guides our determination. “Under the clear and convincing standard, the evidence must be ‘“‘“so clear as to leave no substantial doubt”’”’ and ‘“‘“sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.”’’”’” (Butte Fire Cases (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158.) This stringent standard must be accompanied by evidence of “‘malice,’” defined as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights ...of others” (Civ. Code, §3294, subd. (c)(1)), or “‘oppression,’” defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights” (id., subd. (c)(2)). “‘Despicable conduct’ is conduct that is ‘“so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.”’ ” (Butte Fire Cases, at p.1159.)

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, Bartel v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., May 30, 2025, Docket No. H052083, Certified for Publication)

 

 

California Court of Appeal, Bartel v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., Docket No. H052083

Statute of Limitations

 

Equitable Tolling

 

Insurance Law

 

Duty to Defend

 

California Law

 

 

 

(…) Chicago Title contends the trial court erred in applying equitable tolling to reject its statute of limitations defense and deciding Bartel’s title insurance action was timely. Bartel counters that the interim judgment properly rejected Chicago Title’s statute of limitations defense and applied equitable tolling consistent with the California Supreme Court’s decision in Lambert, 53 Cal.3d 1072, and with the primary right doctrine. Bartel asserts in the alternative that, even assuming equitable tolling paused upon the dismissals of Composti I and Composti II, it resumed when Bartel timely reasserted tender of defense based on Composti III.

 

 

(Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1191(Aryeh).) “A plaintiff must bring a claim within the limitations period after accrual of the cause of action.” (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806; see Code Civ. Proc., § 312.) A cause of action typically “accrues at ‘the time when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements.’” (Fox, at p. 806.) “Actions on title insurance policies are subject to a two-year statute of limitation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 339, subd. (1).)” (Lee v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 583, 599.) Accrual of a cause of action upon a contract or policy of title insurance does not occur “until the discovery of the loss or damage suffered by the aggrieved party thereunder.” (Code Civ. Proc., §339, subd. (1).) Certain equitable exceptions “may alter the rules governing either the initial accrual of a claim, the subsequent running of the limitations period, or both.” (Aryeh, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p.1192.) These exceptions exist “to align the actual application of the limitations defense more closely with the policy goals animating it.”  (Ibid.) Equitable tolling, applied by the trial court here, “may suspend or extend the statute of limitations when a plaintiff has reasonably and in good faith chosen to pursue one among several remedies and the statute of limitations’ notice function has been served.” (Ibid.)

 

In Lambert, our Supreme Court examined whether a cause of action under a title insurance policy alleging a failure to defend accrues when the insurer refuses to defend or when the underlying action is terminated by final judgment. (Lambert, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p.1074.) After considering the statutory language and policies underlying the duty to defend, the court concluded that “although the statutory period commences upon the refusal to defend, it is equitably tolled until the underlying action is terminated by final judgment.” (Id. at p.1077.) While resolution of the statute of limitations is normally a question for the trier of fact, the application of the statute of limitations on undisputed facts is a purely legal question that we review de novo. (Aryeh, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p.1191; see Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1112.)

 

 

We agree with the parties that Lambert guides our resolution of the application of the statute of limitations here. In that decision, our Supreme Court explained, “The duty to defend in a title insurance case is governed by the same principles which govern the duty to defend under general liability policies. The duty commences upon tender of the defense, and continues until the underlying lawsuit is concluded.”  (Lambert, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p.1077.) In rejecting a prior appellate decision that had held that the statute of limitations begins to run upon the rejection of tender, the court stated that such a rule “would allow expiration of the statute of limitations on a lawsuit to vindicate the duty to defend even before the duty itself expires. This grim result is untenable. The insured must be allowed the option of waiting until the duty to defend has expired before filing suit to vindicate that duty.” (Ibid.) The Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations begins to run “upon accrual, which in this case occurs upon the refusal to defend.” (Lambert, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p.1078.) It further decided that the statute of limitation should be equitably tolled between accrual and a final judgment. It reasoned, “the duty to defend is a continuing duty. It is equitable and consistent with the legislative intent to toll the limitations period in which this duty continues from the date of accrual of a cause of action to final judgment.” (Id. at p.1079.)

 

 

The Supreme Court emphasized that its decision was grounded in equitable principles: “It is harsh to require an insured—often a private homeowner—to defend the underlying action, at the homeowner’s own expense, and simultaneously to prosecute—again at the homeowner’s own expense—a separate action against the title company for failure to defend. ‘The unexpected burden of defending an action may itself make it impractical to immediately bear the additional cost and hardship of prosecuting a collateral action against an insurer.’” (Lambert, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p.1078.) The court reasoned that this rule would not prejudice the insurer. “By tendering defense of a third party action to an insurer, the insured will have put the insurer on notice that it may be required under the policy to defend the action. Thus, the insured [sic] will be aware that it must take the steps necessary to prepare and preserve a defense to an action by its insured.” (Id. at p. 1079.) Moreover, an insured has the option of bringing suit against the insurer prior to the entry of final judgment in the underlying litigation. Nothing “prohibits the insured from commencing an action once the insurer has refused a tender of defense. We merely conclude that the insured is not required to do so.” (Id. at p.1080.)

 

 

Applying the principles articulated in Lambert to the facts here, we decide that Bartel’s title insurance action against Chicago Title was timely. Composti filed Composti I, which asserted a right-of-way easement benefiting Composti’s parcel over Bartel’s parcel, on May 25, 2010. Bartel tendered defense to Chicago Title in Composti I on March 18, 2011, triggering Chicago Title’s duty to defend. (See Buss v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 35, 46 (Buss) [stating the duty to defend “arises as soon as tender is made”].)

 

 

On July 27, 2011, Chicago Title declined (in connection with Composti II) to accept tender. Bartel’s claim against Chicago Title therefore accrued on July 27, 2011. Under the principles articulated in Lambert, the claim was equitably tolled until October 16, 2012, the date on which Composti II was dismissed without prejudice. Beginning on that date, Bartel had two years—that is, until October 16, 2014—to bring a claim against Chicago Title for violation of its duty to defend in Composti I and Composti II.

 

 

We reject Bartel’s contention that equitable tolling continues after a dismissal without prejudice. The duty to defend is bound to the pendency of the underlying action and terminates upon its conclusion. Once dismissed, there is no pending action on that claim, regardless of whether a future action arises. (See Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 650, 666 [“Claims that have been dismissed, whether with or without prejudice, are not ‘pending.’”].) (Fn. 10).

 

 

On September 5, 2014 (over one month before the running of the statute of limitations from the dismissal of Composti II), Bartel again tendered defense to Chicago Title. Under the Supreme Court’s analysis in Lambert, this tender of defense triggered Chicago Title’s duty to defend.  (See Lambert, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p.1077 [“The duty commences upon tender of the defense, and continues until the underlying lawsuit is concluded.”].) We decide that, on these facts, Bartel’s tender of the defense equitably tolled the statute of limitations for bringing suit against Chicago Title as of the date of the tender.  

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, Bartel v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., May 30, 2025, Docket No. H052083, Certified for Publication)

 

 

 

 

 

California Court of Appeal, Bartel v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., Docket No. H052083

Insurance Law

 

Duty to Defend

 

California Law

 

 

 

Bartel’s title insurance policy, obtained from Chicago Title in 1998, states in relevant part as to coverage: “Subject to the exclusions from coverage, the exceptions from coverage contained in schedule B and the conditions and stipulations ...[Chicago Title] insures, as of [the policy date] against loss or damage...sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of: 1. Title to the estate or interest described in schedule A being vested other than as stated therein; 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title.”

 

 

Regarding the defense and prosecution of actions, the policy states:  “Upon written request by an insured and subject to the options contained in ...these conditions and stipulations, [Chicago Title] at its own cost and without unreasonable delay, shall provide for the defense of such insured in litigation in which any third party asserts a claim adverse to the title or interest as insured.” In the event of any litigation, the policy provides that Chicago Title “shall have no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title...as insured.” As to the exceptions from coverage, the policy states: “This policy does not insure against loss or damage ...which arise by reason of” certain matters specified in parts I and II of schedule B, including “3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records”; and “5. A road maintenance agreement, including the terms, covenants, provisions and assessments, as contained in the agreement entered into by and between: Mary Swafford, et al. Recorded: September 2, 1970 in Book 2039, Page 369, Official Records of Santa Cruz County Instrument No. 23843” (followed by a list of recorded amendments to the road maintenance agreement).

 

 

“The duty to defend is guided by several well-established principles.” (Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 277, 287 (Hartford).) “An insurer owes a broad duty to defend against claims that create a potential for indemnity under the insurance policy.  (Gray [, supra,] 65 Cal.2d 263, 277–278.) An insurer must defend against a suit even ‘“where the evidence suggests, but does not conclusively establish, that the loss is not covered.”’ (Montrose [, supra,] 6 Cal.4th 287, 299.)” (Ibid.) “Any doubt as to whether the facts give rise to a duty to defend is resolved in the insured’s favor.” (Horace Mann, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p.1081.) “The insurer has a duty to defend the insured as to the claims that are at least potentially covered.” (Buss, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p.49.) “The determination whether the insurer owes a duty to defend usually is made in the first instance by comparing the allegations of the complaint with the terms of the policy. Facts extrinsic to the complaint also give rise to a duty to defend when they reveal a possibility that the claim may be covered by the policy.” (Horace Mann, at p.1078; accord Hartford, at p.287.) “This includes all facts, both disputed and undisputed, that the insurer knows or ‘“becomes aware of”’ from any source [citation] ‘if not “at the inception of the third party lawsuit,” then “at the time of tender.”’ ” (Hartford, at p.287.)

 

 

The California Supreme Court has recognized that its opinion in “Gray made clear that facts known to the insurer and extrinsic to the third party complaint can generate a duty to defend, even though the face of the complaint does not reflect a potential for liability under the policy. [Citation.] This is so because current pleading rules liberally allow amendment; the third party plaintiff cannot be the arbiter of coverage.”  (Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 296.) Stated differently, “‘That the precise causes of action pled by the third party complaint may fall outside policy coverage does not excuse the duty to defend where, under the facts alleged, reasonably inferable, or otherwise known, the complaint could fairly be amended to state a covered liability.’ [Citation.]  Thus, ‘if any facts stated or fairly inferable in the complaint, or otherwise known or discovered by the insurer, suggest a claim potentially covered by the policy, the insurer’s duty to defend arises and is not extinguished until the insurer negates all facts suggesting potential coverage.’” (Hartford, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 287.) To determine whether the insurer owed the insured a duty to defend, the reviewing court examines the insurance policy at issue. (Hameid v. National Fire Ins. of Hartford (2003) 31 Cal.4th 16, 21 (Hameid).) “Insurance policy interpretation is a question of law.” (Ibid.; accord, Hartford, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 288.)  Appellate courts “apply an independent standard of review to decisions interpreting, constructing, and applying insurance policies to determine the scope of actual or potential coverage.” (Food Pro Internat., Inc. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 976, 984–985 (Food Pro); see also Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. v. J. Lamb, Inc. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1031.)

 

 

(…) See Howard v. American National Fire Ins. Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 498, 520 (Howard) [“‘If coverage depends on an unresolved dispute over a factual question, the very existence of that dispute would establish a possibility of coverage and thus a duty to defend.’”].)

 

 

(…) As our Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized, “the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify; an insurer may owe a duty to defend its insured in an action in which no damages ultimately are awarded.” (Horace Mann, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p.1081; Buss, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p.46.)

 

 

(…) While it may be true that Chicago Title was not required to speculate about unpleaded theories of easement, it was obligated to investigate whether the extrinsic facts known to it at tender raised a possibility of liability within the scope of the policy’s coverage. “The carrier must defend a suit which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy” (Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p.275) and “cannot construct a formal fortress of the third party’s pleadings and retreat behind its walls. The pleadings are malleable, changeable and amendable.” (Id. at p.276.)

 

 

(…) General rule that a liability ‘“insurer who has had an opportunity to defend [the underlying action brought against its insured] is bound by the judgment against its insured as to all issues which were litigated in the action,”’” provided the insurer had proper notice of the pendency of that action. (Pruyn v. Agricultural Ins. Co. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 500, 515 (Pruyn); see Hogan v. Midland National Ins. Co. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 553, 564.)

 

 

(…) In Foster-Gardner, the California Supreme Court confirmed the distinction between insurance policy terminology pertaining to a “‘suit’” (referring to “actual court proceedings initiated by the filing of a complaint”) (id. at p. 878) and a “‘“claim”’” (referring to “any number of things” that “‘may ultimately ripen into a suit’”) (id. at p.879). The court held that due to these differences, a precomplaint notice to an insured party regarding its responsibility for environmental pollution remediation does not trigger the insurer’s duty to defend a “‘suit.’” (Id. at p. 880.)

 

 

(…) These cases reinforce the proposition that an insurer who wrongfully refuses to provide its insured with a defense will be bound by the outcome based on the insured’s good faith efforts to resolve the matter. (See Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 654, 660 [“An insurer who denies coverage does so at its own risk, and, although its position may not have been entirely groundless, if the denial is found to be wrongful it is liable for the full amount which will compensate the insured for all the detriment caused by the insurer’s breach of the express and implied obligations of the contract.”].)

 

 

(…) Bartel maintains that he was not required to renew tender after Chicago Title wrongfully refused to defend him in the first two underlying actions. The cases cited by Bartel for this point are factually distinguishable in that they involve a single underlying action, in which the insurer denied coverage, and the insured was “thereby relieved of his obligation to notify the insurance company of the progress of the action against him.” (Samson, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 238.) The cases cited by Bartel that absolve an insured of the need to renotify the insurer after the wrongful denial of a tender for defense do not address circumstances in which the alleged liability for the insured’s attorney fees and expenses extends to preparations for a separate action from that in which the insurer had notice. (See, e.g., Samson, at pp. 238–239; Stalberg, supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 1233 [holding that when insurer refused plaintiffs’ tender of their appeal in the underlying action, it “gave up the right to control the litigation and could not insist that plaintiffs use” a specific law firm to cover the attorney’s fees on appeal]; Moe, supra, 21 Cal.App.3d at p. 302 [declining to enforce notice clause in insurance contract absent a showing of prejudice to the insurer due to the delayed notice and where insurer was aware of the pending claim].)

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, Bartel v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., May 30, 2025, Docket No. H052083, Certified for Publication)

 

 

California Court of Appeal, Bartel v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., Docket No. H052083

Insurance Law

 

Coverage

 

Genuine Dispute Doctrine

 

Third Party Duty to Defend

 

Bad Faith

 

California Law

 

 

 

(…)

 

(Chateau Chamberay, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 346; see Century Surety Co. v. Polisso (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 922, 949 [genuine dispute doctrine “holds that an insurer does not act in bad faith when it mistakenly withholds policy benefits, if the mistake is reasonable or is based on a legitimate dispute as to the insurer’s liability”].) Numerous state and federal decisions have recognized the genuine dispute doctrine is not compatible with the principles that govern third party duty to defend cases, in which the possibility of coverage triggers the duty. (See, e.g., Mt. Hawley, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p.1424; Howard, supra,187 Cal.App.4th at p. 530; Harbison v. American Motorists Ins. Co. (E.D. Cal. 2009) 636 F.Supp.2d 1030, 1040.)

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, Bartel v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., May 30, 2025, Docket No. H052083, Certified for Publication)

 

California Court of Appeal, Bartel v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., Docket No. H052083

Insurance Law

 

Bad Faith Claim

 

Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

 

Range of Possible Damages

 

Availability of Tort Remedies

 

Recovery of Attorney Fees in This Context—Often Called Brandt Fees

 

Emotional Distress

 

Declaratory Relief

 

California Law

 

 

 

“The law implies in every contract, including insurance policies, a covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” (Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, 720.) “‘The implied promise requires each contracting party to refrain from doing anything to injure the right of the other to receive the agreement’s benefits.’” (Ibid.; see Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 809, 818 (Egan).) In other words, it “ ‘imposes upon each party the obligation to do everything that the contract presupposes they will do to accomplish its purpose.’” (Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Assn. v. Associated Internat. Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 335, 345 (Chateau Chamberay).) “An insurer is said to act in ‘bad faith’ when it not only breaches its policy contract but also breaches its implied covenant to deal fairly and in good faith with its insured.”  (Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1071.) In this context, “the term ‘bad faith’ is used as “a shorthand reference to a claimed breach by the insurer of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” (Bosetti v. United States Life Ins. Co. in City of New York (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1208, 1235.) “An insurer’s tortious ‘breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing involves something beyond breach of the contractual duty itself.’” (Howard, supra,187 Cal.App.4th at p. 528.) That is, “an insurer’s responsibility to act fairly and in good faith in handling an insured’s claim ‘is not the requirement mandated by the terms of the policy itself—to defend, settle, or pay. It is the obligation ...under which the insurer must act fairly and in good faith in discharging its contractual responsibilities.’” (California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1, 15, quoting Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 566, 573–574.)“ In simple terms, an insurer’s tortious bad faith conduct is conduct that is unreasonable.” (Howard, at p. 529.)

Reasonableness is an objective standard (Bosetti, at p.1237) and must be evaluated as of the time of the insurer’s decisions and actions, not “in the light of subsequent events that may provide evidence of the insurer’s errors.” (Chateau Chamberay, at p.347.)

 

 

“Ordinarily, reasonableness is a factual issue to be decided by a jury.”  (Fadeeff v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 94, 102.)  However, the reasonableness of an insurer’s conduct “can be decided as a matter ‘of law where the evidence is undisputed and only one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence.’” (Ghazarian v. Magellan Health, Inc. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 171, 186–187; accord Chateau Chamberay, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at pp.346, 350; Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Lopez (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1424 (Mt. Hawley).)

 

 

The relevant facts related to Bartel’s tender requests and Chicago Title’s investigation and denials of tender are neither in dispute nor susceptible to competing reasonable inferences. We therefore review the trial court’s determination on Bartel’s bad faith claim de novo, and we do not defer to the trial court’s determination that Chicago Title did not act in bad faith. Regarding the legal principles governing Bartel’s claim for damages in relation to Chicago Title’s alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a finding of bad faith exposes the insurer to a broad range of possible damages. (See Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 400 [“The availability of tort remedies in the limited context of an insurer’s breach of the covenant [of good faith and fair dealing] advances the social policy of safeguarding an insured in an inferior bargaining position who contracts for calamity protection, not commercial advantage”].) Such damages include any damages, including attorney fees, that are the proximate result of the insurer’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813, 817(Brandt); see Civ. Code, § 3333.) The recovery of attorney fees in this context—often called Brandt fees—is an exception to the generally applicable rule that parties to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay their own fees. (Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 780, 806 (Cassim).) “If an insurer fails to act fairly and in good faith when discharging its responsibilities concerning an insurance contract, such breach may result in tort liability for proximately caused damages. Those damages can include the insured’s cost to hire an attorney to vindicate the insured’s legal rights under the insurance policy. ‘When an insurer’s tortious conduct reasonably compels the insured to retain an attorney to obtain the benefits due under a policy, it follows that the insurer should be liable in a tort action for that expense. The attorney’s fees are an economic loss—damages—proximately caused by the tort. [Citation.] These fees must be distinguished from recovery of attorney’s fees qua attorney’s fees, such as those attributable to the bringing of the bad faith action itself.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Brandt, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 817.) Stated differently, because the “entitlement to attorney fees as compensatory damages is premised on an insured’s need to hire an attorney to vindicate his or her contractual rights under an insurance policy” (Cassim, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 807), our high court has “placed a critical limitation on the amount of fees recoverable. ‘The fees recoverable, . . ., may not exceed the amount attributable to the attorney’s efforts to obtain the rejected payment due on the insurance contract. Fees attributable to obtaining any portion of the plaintiff’s award which exceeds the amount due under the policy are not recoverable.’ ” (Ibid., italics omitted.) To the extent the claimed legal fees for both the contract and tort recoveries are intertwined, the plaintiff bears “the burden of demonstrating how the fees for legal work attributable to both the contract and the tort recoveries should be apportioned.” (Cassim, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 813.) Further, “to the extent some overlap in legal work occurs, the trial court should exercise its discretion to apportion the fees” (id. at p. 811) to ensure that the Brandt fee award reflects only those fees attributable to the attorney’s efforts to recover under the breach of the insurance contract. (Id. at p. 813.) Similarly, while noneconomic damages such as for emotional distress are available, those damages must flow from the initial breach of the implied covenant and resulting economic loss. (Gourley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 121, 128–129; see also Major v. Western Home Ins. Co. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1215 (Major).) 

Whether a party is entitled to a particular measure of damages is a question of law. (Atkins v. City of Los Angeles (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 696, 738).

 

 

(…) As our Supreme Court has stated in connection with the duty to defend, “an insurer must defend against a suit even ‘“where the evidence suggests, but does not conclusively establish, that the loss is not covered.”’” (Hartford, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 287.) Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the insured (ibid.), such that the insurer is excused from defending against a third party claim “only when ‘“the third party complaint can by no conceivable theory raise a single issue which could bring it within the policy coverage.”’”(Id. at p. 288, italics added; see also Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 300, italics omitted [stating, to prevail in an action seeking declaratory relief on the issue of the duty to defend “the insured need only show that the underlying claim may fall within policy coverage; the insurer must prove it cannot”].)

 

 

The implied covenant in this context did not require Chicago Title to divine the outcome or speculate as to unpleaded legal theories. Rather, in the face of a claim against the property based on ambiguous maps and road designations, Chicago Title had an implied promise to take reasonable steps to fulfill the expectations of its insured and provide a defense to the claim arising from circumstances conceivably within the scope of the policy. (See Lambert, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p.1081 [“The contract of insurance is unique in that the purchaser seeks not commercial advantage, but rather peace of mind and security in the event of unforeseen calamity.”].)

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, Bartel v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., May 30, 2025, Docket No. H052083, Certified for Publication)

 

California Court of Appeal, 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Association v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B333848

First Party Property Insurance

 

“Named Perils” or “Specific Perils” Policies

 

“Specified-Risk” Coverage

 

“All-Risk” Policies

 

Marine Insurance

 

California Law

 

 

Sec. Sources: Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L.J.; Couch on Insurance; New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition (2023).

 

 

 

First party property insurance indemnifies property owners against loss to property. (Another Planet Entertainment, LLC v. Vigilant Ins. Co. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1106, 1122 (Another Planet), citing 10A Couch on Insurance (3d ed. 2005) § 148:1.) There are two general categories of first-party property insurance. “Named perils” or “specific perils” policies provide coverage only for the specific risks enumerated in the policy and exclude all other risks. (7 Couch on Insurance, supra, § 101:7.) “All-risk” policies provide coverage for all risks unless the specific risk is excluded.  (Ibid.; Another Planet, at p. 1122.) “‘Historically, property insurance grew out of the insurance against the risk of fire which became available for ships, buildings, and some commercial property at a time when most of the structures in use were made wholly or primarily of wood.’ (10A Couch on Insurance, supra, § 148:1.) ‘On this side of the Atlantic, fire insurance first developed in the middle of the eighteenth century. . . . This was insurance against only one cause of loss, or peril—fire. Over time other insured perils, such as wind and hail, were added. These insured perils were each specified in the insurance policy. For this reason, such insurance came to be known as “specified-risk” coverage. It insured property against the risk of damage or destruction resulting from specified causes of loss.’ (Abraham, Peril & Fortuity in Property & Liability Insurance (2001) 36 Tort Trial & Ins. Prac. L.J. 777, 782–783, fn. omitted.) By contrast, marine insurance developed ‘standardized forms that insured an ocean-going vessel and its cargo against “perils of the high seas.” Whereas the development of fire insurance for property on land focused on the danger presented by a specified cause of loss, marine insurance typically provided coverage for all risks associated with a particular shipment or voyage.’ (5 New Appleman on Insurance Law Library Edition (2023) § 41.01[1], fn. omitted.) ‘By the middle of the twentieth century, insurers adopted the marine insurance approach by offering all-risk commercial and homeowners’ property insurance. The operative phrase in such policies is contained in the section labeled “Perils Insured Against,” and provides coverage against the risk of “direct physical loss” to covered property.’ (Abraham, at p. 783, fn. omitted.)“ ‘As with any insurance, property insurance coverage is “triggered” by some threshold concept of injury to the insured property. Under narrow coverages like theft, the theft is itself the trigger. Under most coverages, however, the policy specifically ties the insurer’s liability to the covered peril having some specific effect on the property. In modern policies, especially of the all-risk type, this trigger is frequently “physical loss or damage” . . . .’ (10A Couch on Insurance, supra, § 148:46.)” (Another Planet, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 1122–1123.)

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, March 28, 2025, 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Association v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B333848, Certified for Publication)

 

California Court of Appeal, 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Association v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B333848

Insurance Law

 

Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

 

Liability in Tort

 

California Law

 

 

 

(…) “An insurer is said to act in ‘bad faith’ when it not only breaches its policy contract but also breaches its implied covenant to deal fairly and in good faith with its insured. ‘A covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every insurance contract. [Citations.] The implied promise requires each contracting party to refrain from doing anything to injure the right of the other to receive the agreement’s benefits. To fulfill its implied obligation, an insurer must give at least as much consideration to the interests of the insured as it gives to its own interests. When the insurer unreasonably and in bad faith withholds payment of the claim of its insured, it is subject to liability in tort.’” (Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1071–1072, italics omitted.)

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, March 28, 2025, 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Association v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B333848, Certified for Publication)

 

 

California Court of Appeal, 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Association v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B333848

Insurance Law

 

Punitive Damages

 

California Law

 

 

 

An insurer may be liable for punitive damages if the insured can prove not only that the insurer denied or delayed the payment of policy benefits unreasonably or without proper cause, but, in doing so, was guilty of malice, oppression or fraud. (Jordan, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 1080, citing Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 305.)

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, March 28, 2025, 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Association v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B333848, Certified for Publication)

 

California Court of Appeal, 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Association v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B333848

Insurance Law

 

“All-Risks” Policy

 

Exclusions

 

Nonaccidental Faulty Workmanship

 

Breach of Contract and Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

 

California Law

 

 

 

In 2021, while a building owned by appellant 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Association (HOA) was being reroofed, two rainstorms penetrated the partially constructed roof and caused extensive interior damage. The HOA made a claim under its condominium policy, which was underwritten by respondent Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers). Farmers denied the claim, concluding that the HOA’s losses resulted from nonaccidental faulty workmanship, which the policy did not cover. The HOA then brought the present action, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Farmers. Farmers moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion, concluding there was no coverage under the condominium policy as a matter of law. We reverse.  As we discuss, the condominium policy was an “all-risks” policy, which covered all damage to the HOA’s property unless specifically excluded.  There are triable issues of material fact as to whether the exclusions relied on by Farmers—the water damage exclusion and the faulty workmanship exclusion—preclude coverage in the present case. We thus reverse the summary judgment.

 

(…)

 

— “Covered Causes of Loss” are “Risks of Direct Physical Loss” unless the loss is “excluded in Section B” or “limited in Paragraph A.4.” (Italics added.) 

 

The policy also contained two coverage exclusions that are relevant to our analysis:

—Water damage exclusion: Farmers will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by “water,” “regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.”  However, Farmers will pay for “water damage to the interior of any building or structure caused by or resulting from rain, . . . whether driven by wind or not, if . . . the building or structure first sustains damages by a Covered Cause of Loss to its roof or walls through which the rain . . . enters.” 

—Faulty workmanship exclusion: Farmers will not pay for loss or damage “caused by or resulting from” specified exclusions, including, among others, “faulty, inadequate or defective . . . planning, zoning, development, surveying, siting . . . and workmanship, repair, construction or renovation.” (Italics added.) However, “if an excluded cause of loss . . . results in a Covered Cause of Loss,” Farmers “will pay for the loss or damage caused by that Covered Cause of Loss.”

 

 

(…) Consistent with Dewsnup, Victory Peach, and Wellsville Manor, we conclude that there are triable issues of fact as to whether the water exclusion applied in the present case. As an initial matter, we reject Farmers’s contention that the property was without a “roof” when it suffered rain damage in October 2021. The policy does not define “roof,” and we agree with the cited cases that a common sense meaning of “roof” includes a covering over a building that provides structural integrity and protection from the elements. We note in this regard that because no roof is permanent, all roofs must be periodically replaced. Replacing a roof requires removing worn outer layers and replacing them with new materials, thus leaving a structure not fully protected from the elements for a least a short time. Yet, nothing in the relevant condominium policy informed an insured that it would be without coverage for rain damage during periodic reroofing. To the contrary, the policy defines “covered property” to include “additions under construction, alterations and repairs to the building or structure,” unless covered by other insurance. In view of this language, we conclude that a roof under repair remains a “roof” within the meaning of the policy. In the present case, therefore, the property was never without a “roof” because Bardales removed just some of the roof’s outer layers, leaving the lower layers intact. Specifically, at the time of the first rainstorm, Bardales had removed much of the roof’s top layers, but other layers, including the plywood sheathing and insulation, remained. By the time of the second rainstorm, Bardales had replaced about 80 percent of the insulation and plywood, added a layer of “base paper” and “base felt,” hot-mopped and tarred much of the roof, and covered the entire roof with tarps. Like the courts in Dewsnup, Victory Peach, and Wellsville Manor, we conclude that the remaining layers of roof, even without the roof membrane, were sufficient to constitute a “roof” within the meaning of the policy.

 

 

Having concluded that the property had a “roof” at all points during the repairs, we must consider whether rain entered the property through “damage” to the roof caused by a “Covered Cause of Loss.”

 

 

(…) The policy does not purport to exclude losses that result from workmanship generally, but only from such “workmanship, repair [or] construction” that is “faulty, inadequate or defective.” Under the maxim expression unius est exclusio alterius, “the fact that [a] contract expressly so provides tends to negate any inference that the parties also intended another consequence to flow from the same event.” (Stephenson v. Drever (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1167, 1175; G & W Warren’s, Inc. v. Dabney (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 565, 576.)  Accordingly, the exclusion for damages caused by negligent workmanship suggests that the policy does not exclude damages caused by workmanship that was not negligent. We therefore conclude that rain damage resulting from roof repairs are covered unless expressly excluded by another provision of the policy, such as the faulty workmanship exclusion. We turn now to that question.

 

 

The parties disagree about the proper characterization of Bardales’s alleged negligence: The HOA asserts Bardales’s alleged negligence was “faulty workmanship,” while Farmers characterizes it as defecting “planning.” We need not decide whether the alleged negligence constitutes faulty “workmanship” or faulty “planning” because both are excluded under the policy if they are direct causes of loss. (Fn. 7).

 

 

We conclude, in line with other cases that have declined to follow Allstate, that “workmanship” unambiguously refers both to the way a contractor creates a finished product and the finished product itself. (See, e.g., Fourth Street Place, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., supra, 270 P.3d at p. 1242 [“the plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘workmanship’ encompasses the quality of the process utilized to achieve the finished product and the quality of the finished product itself” (italics added)]; Wider v. Heritage Maintenance, Inc. (2007) 14 Misc.3d 963, 975 [827 N.Y.S.2d 837] [“An ordinary business-person applying for a commercial property insurance policy and reading the language of this exclusion would understand that, depending on the type of work done, the faulty workmanship exclusion could apply to the process of doing the work or the finished product”]; Schultz v. Erie Ins. Group (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) 754 N.E.2d 971, 976 [“while the term ‘faulty workmanship’ allows at least two definitions, we see no reason why it must mean either a ‘flawed product’ or a ‘flawed process.’ ”Since ‘workmanship’ denotes both ‘process’ and ‘product,’ an insurer could just as likely have both perils in mind when it drafts a policy’s list of exclusions”].)

 

 

However, although we do not adopt Allstate’s reasoning, we nonetheless conclude that the faulty workmanship exclusion does not unambiguously exclude coverage in this case. To establish the absence of coverage, Farmers had to demonstrate that there were no triable issues regarding the cause of the damage to the HOA’s property—or stated, differently, that the undisputed evidence established that the damage to the HOA’s property was “caused by or resulted” from Bardales’s negligence. But there was evidence that roof damage was caused not only by Bardales’s alleged negligence, but also by wind and rain. Specifically, Bardales testified that rain damaged the exposed plywood and insulation layers on October 4, and wind blew off tarps Bardales placed over the partially constructed roof on October 25. Farmers did not establish that the damage to the plywood, insulation, and tarps—that is, to the “roof”—did not contribute, at least in part, to the interior water damage. Moreover, as the HOA notes, Farmers introduced no evidence that the roof repairs could have been done in a way that would have fully protected the property in the event of a rainstorm. That is, while Farmers’s evidence suggested that Bardales failed to follow industry standards by removing nearly the entire roof membrane at once, it did not establish that compliance with industry standards would have avoided rain damage entirely—and thus that the damage resulted entirely from Bardales’s alleged negligence.

 

 

(…) “An insurer is said to act in ‘bad faith’ when it not only breaches its policy contract but also breaches its implied covenant to deal fairly and in good faith with its insured. ‘A covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every insurance contract. [Citations.] The implied promise requires each contracting party to refrain from doing anything to injure the right of the other to receive the agreement’s benefits. To fulfill its implied obligation, an insurer must give at least as much consideration to the interests of the insured as it gives to its own interests. When the insurer unreasonably and in bad faith withholds payment of the claim of its insured, it is subject to liability in tort.’” (Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1071–1072, italics omitted.)

 

 

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, March 28, 2025, 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Association v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B333848, Certified for Publication)

 

 

California Court of Appeal, 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Association v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B333848

Building Material and Construction Products

 

https://www.buildsite.com

 

 

Find Products

Search over 20,000 products by manufacturer, product name, category, and ASTM.

 

Build Submittals

Tie product selections to specs. Autogenerate Tables of Contents. Send to your GC and Design Team.

 

Get Quotes

Contact professional-grade distributors near you for up-to-date pricing and support.

 

 

Cit. in:

California Court of Appeal, March 28, 2025, 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Association v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B333848, Certified for Publication

 

 

California Court of Appeal, 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Association v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B333848

Principles of Insurance Interpretation

 

California Law

 

 

 

 

The principles governing the interpretation of insurance policies in California are well settled. “‘Our goal in construing insurance contracts, as with contracts generally, is to give effect to the parties’ mutual intentions. (Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1264; see Civ. Code, § 1636.) “If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs.” (Bank of the West, at p. 1264; see Civ. Code, § 1638.) If the terms are ambiguous [i.e., susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation], we interpret them to protect “‘the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured.’” (Bank of the West, at p. 1265, quoting AIU Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807, 822.) Only if these rules do not resolve a claimed ambiguity do we resort to the rule that ambiguities are to be resolved against the insurer. (Bank of the West, at p. 1264).’ (Boghos v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (2005) 36 Cal.4th 495, 501.) The ‘tie-breaker’ rule of construction against the insurer stems from the recognition that the insurer generally drafted the policy and received premiums to provide the agreed protection. (See Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541, 552; La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. v. Industrial Indemnity Co. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 27, 37–38.)” (Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (2010) 49 Cal.4th 315, 321 (Minkler).) To ensure that coverage conforms to the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured, “in cases of ambiguity, basic coverage provisions are construed broadly in favor of affording protection, but clauses setting forth specific exclusions from coverage are interpreted narrowly against the insurer. The insured has the burden of establishing that a claim, unless specifically excluded, is within basic coverage, while the insurer has the burden of establishing that a specific exclusion applies.” (Minkler, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 322.) The court is not required “‘to select one “correct” interpretation from the variety of suggested readings;’” instead, where there are multiple plausible interpretations of a policy, a court must find coverage if there is a “‘reasonable interpretation under which recovery would be permitted.’”  (MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2003) 31 Cal.4th 635, 655.)

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, March 28, 2025, 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Association v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, B333848, Certified for Publication)

 

 

 

 

California Court of Appeal, Ng v. Super. Ct., Docket G064257M

Medical Malpractice

 

Survival Claim

 

Wrongful Death Claim

 

Personal Injury

 

Noneconomic Damages

 

Motion to Strike

 

Motion for Leave to Amend

 

Writ of Prohibition

 

Writ of Mandate

 

California Law

 

 

 

In this case for medical malpractice and wrongful death, plaintiff Joely Ng (Ng) and defendant Los Alamitos Medical Center, Inc. (the Medical Center), dispute whether recent amendments to the cap on noneconomic damages (Civ. Code, § 3333.2) under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA) and to the availability of noneconomic damages in survival actions (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.34) permit Ng to recover noneconomic damages under one or two MICRA caps. In this petition, Ng seeks a writ of prohibition or mandate directing respondent court to vacate its May 24, 2024, order granting the Medical Center’s motion to strike portions of Ng’s complaint that allege her entitlement to seek two MICRA caps. We conclude Ng’s claims are subject to two separate MICRA caps. Accordingly, we grant the petition and direct the court to vacate its order and enter a new and different order denying the motion.

 

 

(…) The complaint alleges two causes of action against all defendants: (1) wrongful death, in Ng’s individual capacity; and (2) medical malpractice, in Ng’s capacity as successor in interest to the Decedent (the survival claim). In addition to economic damages, Ng sought noneconomic damages for each claim: (1) for the wrongful death claim, damages for the loss of the Decedent’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support, up to the cap allowed in Civil Code section 3333.2; and (2) for the survival claim, damages for the Decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering, up to the cap allowed in Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34, subdivision (b).

 

 

Objecting to Ng’s request for two separate caps for noneconomic damages, the Medical Center filed a motion to strike the following language from the complaint (at paragraph 20 and repeated verbatim in the prayer): “This is separate, apart, and in addition to the general damages sought by Kenneth Ng’s widow in the first cause of action. (See Keys v. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 484, 488; Atkins v. Strayhorn (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1380.)” Although the Medical Center agrees that Ng is entitled to seek noneconomic damages for both claims, it contends those damages are subject to one MICRA cap. In other words, the Medical Center interprets the relevant statutes as prohibiting Ng from recovering two separate noneconomic damages caps, one for each claim.

 

 

Respondent court granted the motion. The court reasoned that because “the wrongful death claim is not separate and distinct from a medical negligence claim, it cannot be . . . subject to a separate MICRA cap.” The court, however, “noted that while the MICRA cap affects the final judgment, it does not have any impact on the jury’s verdict itself or the amount determined to be plaintiff’s actual noneconomic losses.” Although the court denied leave to amend, it did so “without prejudice to plaintiff bringing a motion for leave to amend to assert the two claims as separate and distinct for purposes of the MICRA cap, should plaintiff discover and allege facts that support a finding the wrongful death claim is separate and distinct from the medical negligence claim.”

 

 

A trial court may “strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading” and “all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (§ 436, subds. (a), (b).) Generally, we review a ruling on a motion to strike for abuse of discretion. (Cal-Western Business Services, Inc. v. Corning Capital Group (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 304, 309.) But where, as here, the ruling concerns “the proper interpretation of a statute, and its application to undisputed facts,” it is a question of law which we review de novo. (Ibid.)

 

 

At issue here is whether the recent amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34, which authorizes a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest to recover noneconomic damages, means a plaintiff can seek two MICRA cap awards (one for himself or herself and one for the decedent) under Civil Code section 3333.2. We conclude it does. Because a wrongful death claim and a survival claim—even when premised on the same alleged medical malpractice—are separate and distinct claims, a plaintiff suing for both claims can seek to recover two MICRA caps.

 

 

Ng’s action, filed in 2023, is subject to the recent amendments to these statutes. As relevant here, effective January 1, 2022, subdivision (b) was added to section 377.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure to allow for the recovery of damages for a decedent’s “pain, suffering, or disfigurement” in survival actions “filed on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2026.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 448, § 1.) It also provided that “nothing in this section alters Section 3333.2 of the Civil Code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.34, subd. (e).) Effective January 1, 2023, Civil Code section 3333.2 was amended to, among other things, increase the $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages. (Id., § 3333.2, subds. (a)–(c) [$350,000 in medical malpractice cases not involving wrongful death, $500,000 in wrongful death cases, with annual increases]; Stats. 2022, ch. 17, § 3.) These amendments raised the question of whether a survival claim was subject to a separate MICRA cap.

 

 

A survival claim (§ 377.30) is “a separate and distinct cause of action which belonged to the decedent before death but, by statute, survives that event. [Citation.] The survival statutes do not create a cause of action. Rather, ‘they merely prevent the abatement of the cause of action of the injured person, and provide for its enforcement by or against the personal representative of the deceased.’” (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1264 (Quiroz).) In contrast, a wrongful death claim (§ 377.60) compensates the heirs of the decedent “for the loss of companionship and for other losses suffered as a result of the decedent’s death.” (Quiroz, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1263.) Such “damages . . . are in the nature of compensation for personal injury to the heir” and “include (1) the loss of the decedent’s financial support, services, training and advice, and (2) the pecuniary value of the decedent’s society and companionship.” (Id. at p. 1264.) “Unlike some jurisdictions wherein wrongful death actions are derivative,” California’s wrongful death statute “‘creates a new cause of action in favor of the heirs as beneficiaries, based upon their own independent pecuniary injury suffered by loss of a relative, and distinct from any the deceased might have maintained had he survived.’” (Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272, 283.)

 

 

Crucially, a wrongful death claim may not include any damages recoverable as part of a survival claim, and the claims may be tried separately. (§ 377.61; Wilson v. John Crane, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 847, 861.) For these reasons, we conclude respondent court erred in finding the claims were “not separate and distinct” and subject to one MICRA cap.

 

 

DISPOSITION

The petition is granted. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the trial court to vacate its May 24, 2024, order granting the Medical Center’s motion to strike and to issue a new and different order denying the motion. Petitioner to recover costs of this proceeding. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.493(a)(1)(A).)

 

 

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, Feb 20, 2025, Ng v. Super. Ct., Docket G064257M, Certified for Publication)